i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.

surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.

let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.

surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.

let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?

There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.

Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.

surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.

let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?

There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.

Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.

you're straying away from the thrust of my argument. which was: given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?

the answer should be obvious. the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.

given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center; otherwise we wouldn't have or need that many full nodes. we'd just need one. the scenario you're drawing, in contrast, is just a variation on TPTB's one world gubmint doom_to_us_all. i don't buy that. Bitcoin has much more potential to change the system as we know it and that's where i think it's headed.

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.

surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.

let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?

There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.

Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.

you're straying away from the thrust of my argument. which was: given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?

the answer should be obvious. the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.

Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.

Quote

given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center

Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.

As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.

surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.

let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?

There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.

Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.

you're straying away from the thrust of my argument. which was: given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?

the answer should be obvious. the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.

Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.

Quote

given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center

Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.

As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.

well yeah. given that it was my theoretical argument, yes, i get to define the conditions. but those aren't unreasonable conditions i've defined. all i'm assuming is that the motivations behind user growth and running full nodes don't change from what they are today: users use Bitcoin b/c it's cheap, apolitical, a SOV, and relatively easy to use and access; full nodes are run by volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters. all i'm doing is extrapolating those conditions forward towards a world where 100,000 full nodes and every person in the world using Bitcoin would clearly be a way more valuable and secure decentralized system than the reverse.

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.

surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.

let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?

There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.

Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.

you're straying away from the thrust of my argument. which was: given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?

the answer should be obvious. the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.

Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.

Quote

given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center

Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.

As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.

well yeah. given that it was my theoretical argument, yes, i get to define the conditions. but those aren't unreasonable conditions i've defined. all i'm assuming is that the motivations behind user growth and running full nodes don't change from what they are today: users use Bitcoin b/c it's cheap, apolitical, a SOV, and relatively easy to use and access; full nodes are run by volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters. all i'm doing is extrapolating those conditions forward towards a world where 100,000 full nodes and every person in the world using Bitcoin would clearly be a way more valuable and secure decentralized system than the reverse.

Can you provide technical arguments for your proposition that "volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters" could manage to run a full node when "everyone and their coffee cup on the planet" is on Bitcoin?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.

surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.

let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?

There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.

Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.

you're straying away from the thrust of my argument. which was: given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?

the answer should be obvious. the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.

Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.

Quote

given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center

Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.

As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.

well yeah. given that it was my theoretical argument, yes, i get to define the conditions. but those aren't unreasonable conditions i've defined. all i'm assuming is that the motivations behind user growth and running full nodes don't change from what they are today: users use Bitcoin b/c it's cheap, apolitical, a SOV, and relatively easy to use and access; full nodes are run by volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters. all i'm doing is extrapolating those conditions forward towards a world where 100,000 full nodes and every person in the world using Bitcoin would clearly be a way more valuable and secure decentralized system than the reverse.

Can you provide technical arguments for your proposition that "volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters" could manage to run a full node when "everyone and their coffee cup on the planet" is on Bitcoin?

if everyone on the planet were using Bitcoin, it's not hard to imagine that most merchants would be running their own full nodes for security and fiduciary responsibility reasons. also, gvts and banks would probably being doing it too and that wouldn't be a bad thing given that there would be 100,000 worldwide run by a diversity of gvts, banks, and everyone else. taking it down to the individual, maybe it won't be practical but maybe it will assuming the price of Bitcoin increases proportionately making the cost of such a thing similar to what it is today in USD. and then there is always pruning. i'm not worried about enough decentralized full nodes at all.

if everyone on the planet were using Bitcoin, it's not hard to imagine that most merchants would be running their own full nodes for security and fiduciary responsibility reasons.

It's a fair question whether "most merchants" could afford to (or would) run such a node, the way they currently use credit card terminals. Credit card terminals come with many conditions and significant cost, but they at least don't require a lot of IT infrastructure (at the low end).

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.

surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.

let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.

which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?

It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?

There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.

Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.

you're straying away from the thrust of my argument. which was: given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?

the answer should be obvious. the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.

Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.

Quote

given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center

Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.

As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.

well yeah. given that it was my theoretical argument, yes, i get to define the conditions. but those aren't unreasonable conditions i've defined. all i'm assuming is that the motivations behind user growth and running full nodes don't change from what they are today: users use Bitcoin b/c it's cheap, apolitical, a SOV, and relatively easy to use and access; full nodes are run by volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters. all i'm doing is extrapolating those conditions forward towards a world where 100,000 full nodes and every person in the world using Bitcoin would clearly be a way more valuable and secure decentralized system than the reverse.

Can you provide technical arguments for your proposition that "volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters" could manage to run a full node when "everyone and their coffee cup on the planet" is on Bitcoin?

if everyone on the planet were using Bitcoin, it's not hard to imagine that most merchants would be running their own full nodes for security and fiduciary responsibility reasons. also, gvts and banks would probably being doing it too and that wouldn't be a bad thing given that there would be 100,000 worldwide run by a diversity of gvts, banks, and everyone else. taking it down to the individual, maybe it won't be practical but maybe it will assuming the price of Bitcoin increases proportionately making the cost of such a thing similar to what it is today in USD. and then there is always pruning. i'm not worried about enough decentralized full nodes at all.

give me a break with your "pruning". pruning doesn't have anything to do with Bitcoin

Quote

most merchants would be running their own full nodes for security and fiduciary responsibility reasons. also, gvts and banks would probably being doing it too and that wouldn't be a bad thing given that there would be 100,000 worldwide run by a diversity of gvts, banks, and everyone else.

oh well all fine and dandy then!

please note that most merchants are individuals also and given that most (all?) merchants using Bitcoin at the moment do not run their own nodes I'm not sure how you could extrapolate they will when it becomes much more expensive in the future.

Quote

gvts, banks, and everyone else.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

Is 8mb better than no limit? I don't know and I don't care much ( ) : I think Bitcoin adoption is a slow, hard process and we'll be lucky to increase average usage 8x over the next couple of years. So if 8mb+ is better for others, that's OK by me.

Is 8mb better than no limit? I don't know and I don't care much ( ) : I think Bitcoin adoption is a slow, hard process and we'll be lucky to increase average usage 8x over the next couple of years. So if 8mb+ is better for others, that's OK by me.

Is 8mb better than no limit? I don't know and I don't care much ( ) : I think Bitcoin adoption is a slow, hard process and we'll be lucky to increase average usage 8x over the next couple of years. So if 8mb+ is better for others, that's OK by me.

Great news! At this point I'm nearly 100% sure that 'bearish' to Mike Hearn means that the solution will have trouble being brought under control of the current 'powers that be' who own practically everything else.

This is an extra good reason not to let one's guard down. There is no way that the attackers will ever simply walk away. Most likely they will shift their efforts to other concurrent or newly hatched strategies of subterfuge and/or frontal assault.

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.

surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

This here is the mistake you repeatedly make and I've seen others repeat during the block size debate.

The more correct version is if every capital in the world is held in Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate decentralization.

While it may seem counter-intuitive, more users does not necessarily translate in more value. On the other hand, more money in the system is a sure sign of an healthy network effect. There is more economic incentive to secure and decentralize a network with 1 M users holding 10T$ worth of wealth than 1 B users under a 100 B$ market cap.

This is not Facebook guys, this is a money protocol. When speaking of network effect we should consider the amount of capital that is attracted and not only the number of users.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

Is 8mb better than no limit? I don't know and I don't care much ( ) : I think Bitcoin adoption is a slow, hard process and we'll be lucky to increase average usage 8x over the next couple of years. So if 8mb+ is better for others, that's OK by me.

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.

surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.

if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.

This here is the mistake you repeatedly make and I've seen others repeat during the block size debate.

The more correct version is if every capital in the world is held in Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate decentralization.

While it may seem counter-intuitive, more users does not necessarily translate in more value. On the other hand, more money in the system is a sure sign of an healthy network effect. There is more economic incentive to secure and decentralize a network with 1 M users holding 10T$ worth of wealth than 1 B users under a 100 B$ market cap.

This is not Facebook guys, this is a money protocol. When speaking of network effect we should consider the amount of capital that is attracted and not only the number of users.

says the kid who has no experience in anything that i can identify.

why has the current credit card system grown to rapidly? it's b/c it's user friendly. the merchant is the one who has to bear all the risk and cost in terms of basic usage and chargebacks. it's easy to get a cc in this country and to run up credit only to have to pay it back dearly if you aren't on time.

what Bitcoin has done is reverse that entire process by creating a digital cash. all the risk shifts to the buyer for online pmts for goods not delivered as the tx's aren't reversible. dealing with unknown parties is risky. to compensate, multi-sig, pmt processors, and 0conf strategies have had to kick in. up to now, user growth has depended on cheap, reliable fees along with the other compensations. the user growth hasn't been great tho as can be seen in the statistics from places like Overstock and Bitpay.

now, as a result of the continued spam attacks and resulting unconf tx's, users have the one thing that has made Bitcoin great for them being taken away; fast, easy, cheap payments. that is a travesty perpetuated by crippled minds like yours. good luck with ever getting Bitcoin to replace gold's role as the major SOV under these attack conditions. and i am still of the mind that what we're seeing in the data (uninterrupted full block flow, no signif increase in orphans, no signif full node/miner disruption) is prima facie evidence that the network can handle much bigger blocks than it is now: